Recovery of overpaid gratuity is permissible if the employee fails to provide necessary documentation leading to overpayment, regardless of previous judgments disallowing such recovery.

ORDER

PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

a) To issue a direction to the respondents to refund the recovered sum of Rs. 6,25,680/- and also for payment of interest on the entire gratuity amount for the delayed payment of entire gratuity amount of Rs. 16,10,196/-.

b) Grant such other order/s as this Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:

a) The applicant initially joined Indian Air Force on 20.02.1982. He took premature retirement from the Air Force in the post of Wing Commander w.e.f., 31.08.2004 after working there for more than 23 years.

b) The applicant subsequently applied for the post of Scientist F in DRDO. He was issued appointment order dated 22.06.2004 (wrongly typed the year as 2005) (Annexure-A1). The applicant’s appointment was under open recruitment on regular basis carrying a pay scale of Rs. 14,300-400-18,300/-.

c) The applicant joined the post on 01.09.2004. Since the appointment was after 01.01.2004, the applicant was brought under New Pension Scheme. After serving for about 14 years the applicant retired from service on 31.01.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation.

d) After implementation of VII Pay Commission, the applicant was granted the appropriate scale of pay from 01.01.2016. After about 02 years the Accounts Officer of 4^th Respondent issued an inter-office note on the subject of recovery of difference of pension in respect of some of the officers including the applicant herein. The note stated that "During February 2018 the non-ignorable part of pension has been provisionally fixed in the absence of PPO copy on revision of pension 2016. Hence it is requested to submit the revised PPO copy of Pension 2016 to Admin section in order to fix the non-ignorable part of pension.”

e) As the applicant had not received the revised PPO copy the same could not be produced. However, the applicant submitted a copy of DOPT OM dated 02.03.2016 as per which no dues/arrears can be recovered from any officer retiring within one year and as the applicant was retiring on 31.01.2019 no recovery could be effected from him. This can be made out from a letter dated 26.12.2018 (Annexure-A3) issued by the 4^th respondent addressed to the 3^rd respondent.

f) On 17.01.2019, 4^th respondent wrote a letter to the 3^rd respondent in relation to the gratuity of the applicant who was due to retire on 31.01.2019, (Annexure- A4). Along with the letter, the calculation sheet of amount of gratuity payable to the applicant at Rs.15,67,066/- was also enclosed. Consequently on 29.01.2019 i.e., two days prior to the date of retirement, 3^rd respondent addressed a letter to Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (P), Allahabad, regarding gratuity claim of the applicant inter alia stating that a sum of Rs.6,25,680/- was required to be recovered from the gratuity.

g) On 31.01.2019, the 4^th respondent wrote another letter to the 3^rd respondent regarding delay of about 69 days on its part for verification of service book of the applicant in view of the fact that the applicant had been making claim for provisional gratuity to be paid.

h) On 26.12.2018, a representation of the applicant was submitted along with a copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11527/2014 ( State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih ) to the effect that no recovery is permissible from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. The said representation was forwarded by the 4^th responde